DETAILED ACTION
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the request for continued examination filed on August 26, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 6–8, and 10 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 4 and 9 have been cancelled.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 are currently pending and have been examined.
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on August 26, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 101:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First of all, claims must be directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. Claims 1–3 and 5–8 are directed to a machine (“A system”), and claim 10 is directed to a process (“A method”). Thus, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 satisfy Step One because they are all within one of the four statutory categories of eligible subject matter.
Claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10, however, are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. For claim 1, the specific limitations that recite an abstract idea are:
. . . register a plurality of users for receiving a plurality of bid offers associated with a tender . . .;
. . . create the tender based on one or more input parameters received from specified users out of the plurality of users;
. . . receive the plurality of bid offers from the plurality of users for the tender;
verify a bid bond requirement for establishing eligibility for bid offer submission of the specified users out of the plurality of users before receiving the one or more input parameters from specified users out of the plurality of users; . . .
identify at least two bid offers, from the . . . bid offers, based on a net delivered price value corresponding to each of the . . . bid offers; and
maintain confidentiality regarding identities of at least two users, of the specified users out of the plurality of users, associated with the at least two bid offers until the net delivered price value is accepted or rejected . . .;
. . . send an invite to the at least two users associated with the at least two bid offers related to the tender for auction, . . . by:
sending respective mails comprising the invite to respective official mail identifiers of respective at least two users; and . . .
calculate in real-time, for each of the at least two users, the minimum improvement value based on the bid offer of the corresponding user, a best bid offer among the at least two bid offers, and a predefined improvement factor, to be provided to each of the at least two users, wherein the predefined improvement factor is indicative of a minimum change required in the bid offer to match the best bid offer in the auction; and . . .
receive, from a user of the at least two users, a revised bid offer based on the minimum improvement value, wherein the revised bid offer is received within a predefined time period for auction;
extend the predefined time period for auction to receive another revised bid offer when the revised bid offer is received during a specified duration of the predefined time period; and
dynamically recalculate in real-time, for each of the at least two users, a revised minimum improvement value through back-calculations and forward-calculations, based on the revised bid offer received from the user to receive another revised bid offer from the at least two users, wherein revisions are made to the minimum improvement value through dynamic recalculations, based on revisions in the bid offers received from the at least two users, till duration of the auction, and wherein confidentiality of the best bid offer is maintained at all points of time in the duration of the auction.
The claims, therefore, recite creating a tender transaction and receiving bids, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite a commercial interaction. The claims also recite determining a minimum improvement value between bids, which is the abstract idea of mathematical concepts because it recites a mathematical relationship.
The judicial exception recited above is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the claims are various generic technologies and computer components to implement this abstract idea (“system”, “registration module”, “communication network”, “cloud-based network”, “tender creation module”, “bid processing module”, “encrypted”, “auctioning module”, “system mailbox”, “portal”, “display interfaces”, “communication module”, and “bid acceptance module”). The claims also recite to “encrypt, using public private key encryption, bid offers of the plurality of bid offers received from the specified users out of the plurality of users for the tender in response to the verification of the bid bond requirement for establishing the eligibility for bid offer submission of the specified users out of the plurality of users, wherein the encrypted bid offers are maintained on a server separate from the system and are only decryptable using private keys and digital signature certificates of respective specified users out of the plurality of users at a tenderer’s end and at a scheduled tender opening time”, “sending mails comprising the invite on a system mailbox available on a portal associated with the system”, and “display in real-time, via respective graphical user interfaces of respective user devices of the at least two users, the predefined improvement factor for each of the at least two users”. These additional elements are not integrated into a practical application because the invention merely applies the abstract idea to generic computer technology, using the computer to create the transaction and encrypt and communicate information between the parties. Because the invention is using the computer simply as a tool to perform the abstract idea on, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Finally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above, the additional elements in combination are at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic components. Because merely “applying” the exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept, the additional elements do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 for substantially the same reasons as independent system claim 1. There are no additional elements recited in these claims other than the generic technology and computer parts discussed above (“encrypting”, “system”, “system mailbox”, and “portal”). The only difference is that the features of claim 1 are implemented by a method in claim 10. Thus, because the same analysis should be used for all categories of claims, claim 10 is also not patent eligible. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Dependent claims 2, 3, and 5–8 have been given the full two part analysis, analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claims, when analyzed individually and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For claim 2, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the bidding transaction recited in claim 1 by further specifying the input parameters for the transaction—“an input for loadport, offer laydays, country of origin, and shipping co-ordinates”.
For claim 3, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the bidding transaction recited in claim 1 by further specifying how the user is selected—“based on a category of a product associated with the tender”. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This claim does recite a communication module, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to communicate information between the parties. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 5, the additional recited limitations of this claim are merely directed to an abstract idea. This dependent claim only recites completing the transaction by accepting the bid offers, which is the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because it recites a commercial interaction. The limitations of this claim fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this claim does not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above. This claim does recite a bid acceptance module, but again, this is also merely being used as a tool to perform the transaction. This dependent claim, therefore, also amounts to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of this dependent claim fails to establish that the claim provides an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claims 6 and 8, the additional recited limitations of these claims merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. These dependent claims only narrow the bidding transaction recited in claim 1 by further specifying how the net price and minimum improvement value are determined—“based on quantity of product, credit period, freight, base quotes for the bid offers, tax, and special port charges”. The limitations of these claims fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims do not introduce additional elements other than the generic components discussed above (“auctioning module” and “bid processing module”). These dependent claims, therefore, also amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Finally, the additional recited limitations of these dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept.
For claim 7, the additional recited limitations of this claim merely further narrow the abstract idea discussed above. This dependent claim only narrows the bidding transaction recited in claim 1 by further specifying information about the different bid offers—“correspond to a specific user” and “associated with a different delivery option”.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that the claims do not recite methods of organizing human activity because they recite providing access through communication networks or cloud-based networks, encrypting bid offers, and providing dynamic real-time calculations. Applicant explains that these features require operations performed by a computer that go against human intuition, similar to Example 37 of the 2019 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples. See 2019 PEG Examples 37 through 42, at p. 1, https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf (issued January 7, 2019). Applicant, however, has not explained any further how the claims are similar to the claims in Example 37. Applicant further argues that none of the above steps in the claims are directed towards any mathematical concept because they involve technological improvements related to encryption and dynamic calculations. Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite improvements to computer functionality and are therefore eligible, similar to the claims in Enfish. As discussed in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above, however, the claims do still recite a tender transaction and determining a minimum improvement value, so they do recite a commercial interaction and a mathematical relationship, even if they further recite these technical elements. The use of these various technologies in the claims is an implementation of this abstract idea through additional elements and are therefore addressed further in the next steps of the analysis. Thus, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 do recite an abstract idea.
Next, Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite an improvement to the reverse/forward auctioning process in petroleum products trading. Applicant explains that the claims enhance security through encryption, real-time processing, and maintaining bid confidentiality. These improvements, however, are directed to improving the bidding transaction. The features noted by Applicant only involve securely communicating auction information and performing calculations to obtain the improvement factor, which merely facilitates performing the forward/reverse auction. The additional technology in the claims cited by Applicant also merely make these calculations and the transaction more efficient. The claims are therefore only using the technology as a tool to implement the abstract idea, rather than improving the technology itself in any way. Thus, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 do not include sufficient elements to integrate the claims into a practical application.
Finally, Applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant again cites the limitations of claim 1, and argues that the claims provide specific encryption using public-private key pairs, real-time dynamic calculations, and display updates through a graphical user interface. Applicant therefore concludes that the claimed invention improves processing bid offers for trading petroleum products and forward/reverse auctioning of these products. As explained above, however, these are improvements to the abstract ideas of performing a bid transaction and determining the minimum improvement value. The claims then merely apply these abstract ideas to various technology to make them more efficient and secure. And, merely applying an abstract idea to a computer cannot provide an inventive concept, as required under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, claims 1–3, 5–8, and 10 do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. The following references are pertinent for disclosing various features relevant to the invention, but not all the features or combination of features of the invention, for at least the following reasons:
Milgrom, U.S. Patent App. No. 2012/0185348, discloses computing a minimum winning bid price.
Carlson et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2016/0098727, discloses registering users for an electronic bidding system.
Finkelstein et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2013/0218708, discloses extending auction lengths based on receiving bids within a certain period.
Rothwell-Reese et al., U.S. Patent App. No. 2020/0134710, discloses receiving initial bids for comparison prior to receiving final bids.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIVESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272–3430. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday and Thursday 10:00 AM–8:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Gart can be reached on (571) 272–3955. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571–273–8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DIVESH PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3696